Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1020

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Declaration Of Jason R. Bartlett In Support Of Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #3 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 8, #4 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 9, #5 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 10, #6 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 11, #7 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 17, #8 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 18, #9 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 19, #10 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 23, #11 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 26, #12 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 30, #13 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 31, #14 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 32, #15 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 53, #16 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 54, #17 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 55, #18 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 57, #19 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 58, #20 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 59, #21 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 60, #22 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 61, #23 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 62, #24 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 64, #25 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 67, #26 Bartlett Decl. Ex. 80)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/1/2012)

Exhibit 30
(Submitted Under Seal)

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 1
1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

3
4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

APPLE INC., a California
corporation,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
vs.
) Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
)
LTD., a Korean business
)
entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS )
AMERICA, INC., a New York
)
corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, )
LLC, a Delaware limited
)
liability company,
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________)

12
13
14
15

H I G H L Y C O N F I D E N T I A L
A T T O R N E Y S' E Y E S O N L Y

16
17
18
19

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF STEPHEN GRAY
Palo Alto, California
Friday, May, 4, 2012

20
21
22
23
24

BY: HEIDI BELTON, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR
CSR LICENSE NO. 12885
JOB NO. 49273

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3
1

May, 5, 2012
8:57 a.m.

A P P E A R A N C E S:

2
3

Videotaped deposition of STEPHEN GRAY, held
at the offices of Morrison & Foerster, LLP,
755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California,
before Heidi Belton, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR.
CSR License No. 12885

FOR THE PLAINTIFF APPLE INC.:

4

MORRISON & FOERSTER

5

425 Market Street

6

San Francisco, California 94105

7

By: Andrew E. Monach, Esq.

8

Mark E. Melahn, Esq.

9
10
11
12
13

FOR DEFENDANT: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

14

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN

15

555 Twin Dolphin Drive

16

Redwood Shores, California 94065

17

By: Victoria F. Maroulis, Esq.

18
19
20

and

21

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN

22

51 Madison Avenue

23

New York, New York 10010

24

By: Guy Eddon, Esq.

25

Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T ' D:
and
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
865 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
By: Patrick Schmidt, Esq.

Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Also Present: Shawn Phillips, videographer

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY, MAY 4, 2012
8:57 a.m.
(Whereupon Exhibit 1 marked
for identification.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the start of tape
labeled number 1 of the videotaped deposition of Steven
Gray. In the matter Apple, Incorporated versus Samsung
Electronics Company, Limited, et al., in the
United States District Court, Northern District of
08:56:57
California, San Jose Division. Number 12-CV-00630-LHK
[sic].
This deposition is being held at 755 Page Mill
Road, Palo Alto, California on May 4, 2012 at
approximately 8:57 a.m.
08:57:19
My name is Sean Phillips. I'm the legal video
specialist from TSG Reporting, Incorporated,
headquartered at 747 Third Avenue, New York, New York.
The court reporter is Heidi Belton, in association with
TSG Reporting.
08:57:38
Will counsel please introduce yourself.
MR. MONACH: Andrew Monach, representing
Apple.
MR. MELAHN: Mark Melahn, representing Apple.
MS. MAROULIS: Victoria Maroulis, counsel for 08:57:51

877-702-9580

2

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

asking me the general question regarding anything that I 09:56:52
might disagree with in the writeup generally?
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. I'm asking you, first of all, is the writeup
in regular type, not bold type, that starts, "On the
09:57:01
Galaxy S II user input is processed" -- do you see that?
And then there's a description of Samsung code. Do you
see that?
A. That's on page 3?
Q. Yes, sir.
09:57:17
A. Okay.
Q. Is there anything factually incorrect with
that paragraph in this exhibit of Dr. Singh's?
A. Thanks for the clarification.
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; vague.
09:57:29
THE WITNESS: Thank you for the clarification.
I'll just focus on that. Thank you.

Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

BY MR. MONACH:
Q. Did you look at Android 2.2 and 2.1 code in
preparing your non-infringement rebuttal report?
A. My best recollection is that in some cases I
10:00:17
looked at Android 2.2 and 2.1 code in some cases. I'm
not sure that I looked at it in each and every case.
But I remember looking -- I do recall looking at it in
some.
Q. As you sit here today for your deposition, do 10:00:32

Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

you have any opinion that there are errors or that it's 10:00:38
incorrect to describe the code cited in Android 2.1 and
2.2 as analogous to this Galaxy S II code?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; vague. Assumes
facts.
10:00:55
THE WITNESS: Just as a sort of a low-level
matter, I've always been curious about what is meant by
"analogous code." But what I -- so I'm not really sure
what that term means. If I -- if I looked at the code,
I probably could come to a pretty quick understanding of 10:01:15
whether or not the -- the functions or the methods that
have been identified in -- in the identified code are
the same in Android 2.1 and 2.2. So I don't -- I don't
know how to answer that question directly. But I
don't -- I think I could tell pretty quickly.
10:01:39
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. Okay. You don't recall whether you, in fact,
looked at the code to see whether you thought it was
analogous or performed the same function?
A. Are you suggesting that analogous means
10:01:51
performed the same function?
Q. I don't -A. Okay.
Q. Did you look at it for any purpose, that
vibrant and captivate code, to determine how similar it 10:01:59

Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

was or wasn't to the specific citations about the
10:02:02
Galaxy S II Android 2.3 code?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; vague.
THE WITNESS: So I'm -- sitting here today
don't remember specifically if I did this. But,
10:02:17
however, having said that, this would be something that
I probably would have looked at. But I don't remember
looking specifically at those two. So I just would have
to look at them again.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

BY MR. MONACH:
10:02:39
Q. Is it fair to say that if you felt they were
different in Android 2.2 and 2.1, you would have made
mention of that in your rebuttal report?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; incomplete
hypothetical. Assumes facts.
10:02:49
THE WITNESS: I'm uncertain that I would have
identified every difference between them in my -- in my
expert report. I'm uncertain that I would have done
that. Again, if there had been -- I think the answer is
that if there had been something -- sort of
10:03:14

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

11

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 42
1

course-grained error of some kind, I probably would have

2

identified it. But I couldn't sit here today telling

3

you that I have analyzed it in sufficient detail to

4

ensure that there is no deviations that wouldn't give me

5

pause or make me reconsider the differences. So I just

6

can't make that claim.

7

10:03:20

BY MR. MONACH:

10:03:34

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

24
25

Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Q. Is that a factually accurate description of
the Android Samsung Galaxy S II code?

10:04:32

Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

12

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 46
1

Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

13

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 50

Page 51

1

1

other things that I'm asked to consider or other

2

2

opinions may emerge as facts emerge or deposition

10:27:58

3

3

testimony occurs, which could alter those opinions. So

4

I don't know if I'll have any other opinions or not.

5
MS. MAROULIS: Counsel, we've been going on

Q. Are there -- as you sit here today, given the

6

facts you're aware of, any deposition testimony that

10:28:17

7

you're aware of, does Exhibit 1, your invalidity report,

8

for about an hour and 15 minutes. Do you want to take a

8

reflect all the opinions that you're aware of at this

9

five-minute break?

9

time that you may offer on invalidity of the '915 and

7

10

MR. MONACH: Sure.

10:16:00

11

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:16 a.m. And

10
11

'163?

10:28:37

A. I believe, sitting here today, I'm unaware of

12

we are off the record. I'm going to mark this as the

12

any other opinions that I have that aren't reflected in

13

end of disk 1 in the deposition of Stephen Gray.

13

the -- in my rebuttal report. I might mention that --

14
15

(Recess taken from 10:16 a.m. to 10:26 a.m.)

14

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the beginning of

10:27:04 15

16

disk 2 in the deposition of Stephen Gray. The time is

16

17

10:27 a.m. And we are back on the record.

17

18

BY MR. MONACH:

18

19

Q. Mr. Gray, does Exhibit 1, your invalidity

20

report, reflect all of the opinions you intend to offer

21
22

19
10:27:19

Q. I'm sorry. I asked you about your opening
report.

10:28:58

A. I'm sorry. My opening report, my invalidity
report.
Q. Okay.
A. One thing I would mention, though, and I

20

should have mentioned this when you first introduced the 10:29:04

or may offer in this case on the validity of the -- or

21

exhibit, in reading through my report over the last

invalidity of the '915 and '163 patents?

22

couple of days, I've identified an error or two that I

23

A. My invalidity report was -- my invalidity

23

need to clean up when you get a chance. Doesn't have to

24

report reflects -- reflected opinions that I held at the

24

be now.

25

time that I wrote the invalidity report. There may be

10:27:52

25

Q. Why don't we do that now.

Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A. Okay.
10:29:20
Q. What errors have you identified in reviewing
your invalidity report?
A. There is one error having to do with the -with the date of a prior art reference. I can't
10:29:35
remember -- I'm not recollecting the date, but it was -it was incorrectly identified as January 20 -- let me
see if I can find it.
So on paragraph 305, page 86 of my invalidity
report, Exhibit 1, the date -- a date -- it says, "On
10:30:54
January 20, 2011, the examiner issued a notice of
allowability." That date's incorrect. I have to go
back to the file. Oh, this is with regard to -- oh,
this is with regard to the '163. And the date's wrong.
I'm not sure what that date is. I'd have to go back to 10:31:31
the -- excuse me. I'd have to go back to the file
history to determine what that date should have been.
But the first date, the January 20th, 2011 date, is
incorrect.
Q. Are you aware, as you sit here today, of any
10:31:46
other errors in your invalidity report?
A. Yes. There's another error in the
indefiniteness section pertaining to the '915 patent,
paragraph 266 on page 75. There's a sentence -- the
paragraph 266 doesn't make sense. Something -10:32:29

10:29:19

Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

something happened in the drafting or something. But it 10:32:37
doesn't -- it doesn't make sense.
The first sentence reads -- well, let's start
with the second sentence. The second sentence says,
"Each of the independent claims recites 'the event
10:32:48
object invokes a...operation.' In my 35 years of
systems experience, I have never observed a system where
an event object invoked a method."
That's not true. That's the inaccuracy. It
goes on to say that -- it goes on to make some claim
10:33:10
about it.
Then there is a reference to a Platzer
deposition that -- the sentence leading into that says,
"Additionally, one of the inventors of the '915 patent,
Mr. Platzer, agreed with me at his deposition." And
10:33:30
there's a quote. And it doesn't follow the rest of the
paragraph in 266. I saw this over the last couple of
days when I was rereading my report. And it -- it is
inaccurate.
Q. What should it say?
10:33:49
A. Well, I don't -- I'm not sure -- I don't
have -- I'm not sure exactly what it -- but what I think
it should have said is that -- something to the effect
that "In my 35 years of experience, I've never observed
a system where an event object invoked a method that
10:34:05

877-702-9580

14

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 202
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

separate structured electronic documents distinct from a 16:28:19
structured electronic document in which they're
contained?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; vague. Please feel
free to refer to Exhibit 15.
16:28:30
THE WITNESS: Let me take a look.
So what I'm -- two things. I looked for -- in
the specification -- any evidence to suggest that the
boxes of content could not be a structured electronic
document. And I find nothing in here that suggests that 16:32:31
the boxes of content couldn't be structured electronic
documents on their own. But further, on column 19 -yeah. On column 19, line -- starting at line 17, it's a
discussion about a render tree, and about the nodes on
the render tree, and about the various kinds of nodes
16:33:05
that -- that the render tree could contain in it. The
render tree in the specification is used as a mechanism
for identifying the boxes of content and being able to
traverse to get to the boxes of content.
So let me put this into the record. "In some 16:33:26
embodiments, the structured electronic document has an
associated render tree with the plurality of nodes and
determining the first box at the location of the first
gesture comprises: Traversing down the render tree to
determine a first node in the plurality of nodes that
16:33:43

Page 203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

corresponds to the detected location of the first
16:33:46
gesture, traversing up the render tree from the first
node to the closest parent node that contains a logical
grouping of content and identifying content
corresponding to the closest parent node as the first
16:34:00
box. In some embodiments, the logical grouping of
content comprises a paragraph, an image, a plug-in
object, or a table. In some embodiments the closest
parent node is replaced inline, a block, an inline block
or an inline table."
16:34:19
In those embodiments that we're talking about,
this logical grouping containing a paragraph, an image,
a plug-in, or a table, at least all of those could be -can be -- could clearly be structured electronic
documents. There's no preclusion about that.
16:34:35
Paragraphs have structure. Images can be
configured. A JPEG image, for example, has structure.
A plug-in object -- I'm not sure what they mean by a
"plug-in object," but certainly tables have structure.
So all -- in all of those instances, the render tree
16:34:55
nodes enable structured electronic documents to be part
of the -- the -- the system.
So to answer your question, there is support
for it and nothing to preclude it.
BY MR. MONACH:
16:35:09

Page 204
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Q. In your Appendix 7, depo Exhibit 17, on page 4

16:35:10

1
2
3
tiles to what's called a "zone view" of four tiles,
4
right?
5
A. That's correct.
16:35:35
6
Q. Are you asserting that that change in the
7
display is -- meets the enlarging, translating, and
8
substantially centering a first-box limitation as
9
recited in Claim 50 of the '163 patent?
10
A. The -- with respect to claim 2B, there is a -- 16:36:04
11
a first box which is selected from the world view that
12
then is -- is enlarged and substantially centered. The
13
world view is a collection of four boxes surrounding
14
what they call the "blue dot."
15
Q. Do you mean -- I'm sorry. Did you mean zone 16:36:28
16
view?
17
A. Sorry. Did I say -18
Q. You said "world view."
19
A. Did I say "world view" too many times? The
20
world view is the 6-by-6 matrix. The selection of one 16:36:37
21
of the -- one of the boxes within a four-box matrix
22
surrounding the blue dot in the world view creates a
23
zone view. The zone view is -- what gets enlarged and
24
substantially centered. So the -- this is a -- this is
a box within the world view which becomes centered and 16:37:01 25
you show the -- a transition from the world view of 36

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

Page 205
enlarged in the zone view.
16:37:05
Q. Does -- would you agree that Claim 50
requires -- I'm looking at the -- sort of the middle of
the claim near line 32 -- that what is required is
enlarging and translating the structured electronic
16:37:22
document so that the first box is substantially
centered?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; vague. Calls for
legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: I think you have -- with the
16:37:37
proviso there maybe alterations in the language. But I
think you've -- you've correctly read the limitation
starting at line 31.
MS. MAROULIS: We've been going for over an
hour.
16:37:53
THE WITNESS: Would you like to take a break
soon?
MR. MONACH: Let me just finish up with this.
MS. MAROULIS: Okay.
BY MR. MONACH:
16:37:57
Q. Is it your opinion that in the transition from
the world view to the zone view shown on page 4 of your
Appendix 7, that what has been enlarged and translated
is the same structured electronic document that is shown
in the world view?
16:38:30

877-702-9580

52

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 206
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A. No. The document which is being shown in the 16:38:32
zone view on page 4 is a box of content from the
structured electronic document shown in the world view.
Q. Which is -- so the thing shown on the right is
a different structured electronic document than the
16:39:00
structured electronic document shown in the world view,
right?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; vague.
THE WITNESS: I thought I said something
different, so let me try again.
16:39:16
The selection of -- of the box shown in -okay. In the world view on the left, there is
identified in red a first box. Selection of that box by
a first gesture enlarges and centers that box of content
in the zone view shown on the right.
16:39:38
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. But there is no enlarging and translating of
the structured electronic document shown on the left;
rather, the distinct -- in your view -- structured
electronic documents in those four tiles are enlarged
16:39:57
and centered?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; vague. Assumes
facts.
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. Is that right?
16:40:06

Page 207
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A. I believe that the enlarged and centered zone 16:40:11
view is a box of content found on the world view. It is
comprised of individual tiles or structured electronic
documents on their own. But it is from -- it is derived
or created from an enlargement of the world view
16:40:29
structured electronic document into the zone view.
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. So the world view electronic document, the
36-tile document is not enlarged as an entity and then
translated to center those four boxes, right?
16:40:48
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; vague.
THE WITNESS: I don't have any reason to
believe that -- well, let me say it slightly
differently. I'm not sure, sitting here today, exactly
what the -- the software performed with respect to
16:41:15
enlarging and centering. But given what the functions
are that are intended for LaunchTile, there is no reason
for me, sitting here today, to believe that the
structured electronic document that is -- that is the
world view is not enlarged and the portion of it that
16:41:34
was selected in that box of content simply enlarged and
translated into the zone view.
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. Let's look at the content from these four
boxes that are shown in the center of the world view and 16:41:46

Page 208
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

then are shown in -- on the right in the zone view.
16:41:53
On one -- for example, the upper right-hand
tile inside the red line you've drawn looks like an
e-mail icon. Do you see that?
A. In the -- yes. In -- in the first -- if
16:42:10
you're referring to the -- well, go ahead. Which one
are we pointing at?
Q. Right. So in the box that you've drawn in the
world view and labeled the first box, in the upper
right-hand corner, there is a tile that looks like it
16:42:26
has an e-mail icon. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Right. And that is the -- that's a tile for
the e-mail application in LaunchTile, right?
A. I believe that -- yes, I believe that -- well, 16:42:44
it is a -- it is an icon derived from the e-mail
structured electronic document that underlies it. But
yes, it is a -Q. And then if you look on the right in the zone
view, you don't see a blowup or an enlargement of that 16:42:55
e-mail. What you see is a different level of detail.
You see a listing of individual e-mails within the
e-mail file. There's different content, correct?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; misstates the
document.
16:43:15

Page 209
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

THE WITNESS: I don't -- I would not say that 16:43:20
it is different. Well, I'd say that both the upper
right -- upper right-hand corner of the zone view and
the upper right-hand corner of the first box are derived
from the same document. They're different
16:43:33
manifestations of the same document, but they are
derived from the same structured electronic document
which is the rendering of the e-mail system. It's
just -- based upon the screen real estate, it's a
different manifestation.
16:43:48
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. It's different content. It's not simply an
enlarging of the images that are shown in the tile in
the world view; it is a -- looking at different data and
displaying different data rather than displaying the
16:44:04
same thing in a larger font size or a larger image,
right?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; argumentative.
Misstates the document.
THE WITNESS: Let me agree that it is not a
16:44:14
magnification of what's in the -- in the upper
right-hand corner of the first box of the world view.
It is not a magnification -- the upper right-hand corner
of the zone view is not a magnification of the original.
That's accurate.
16:44:28

877-702-9580

53

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 214
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

within the bounds of the -- of the 2-by-2 box. It is
17:04:34
enlarging and centering that in the -- in the LaunchTile
application view. It is an expansion of that box.
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. Okay. But -- and it is not an enlargement and 17:04:48
translation of a structured electronic document
consisting of these four squares of content, correct?
A. That is -- what it is doing -- yes. What it
is doing is enlarging and expanding the -- it happens to
be enlarging, but it's scrolling into position the upper 17:05:13
right-hand quadrant of the original first box, which is
the 2-by-2 matrix. It's not expanding the entire -entirety of the first box. This is -Q. Right.
A. -- the second box.
17:05:30
Q. And you cannot scroll or pan when you're in
the LaunchTile application view to see any of the
adjacent LaunchTile zone view boxes, right?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; compound.
THE WITNESS: My best recollection of the way 17:05:54
that this operates is that -- is that -- let me think.
I don't -- sitting here right now, I don't remember
certainly whether or not there is the ability to slide
back to the other view. But I think not. I think -- so
let me -- sorry.
17:06:32

Page 215
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

I believe that from the selected second box, 17:06:34
which has been expanded and centered on page 5, is
labeled the "LaunchTile application view," that it is -from there, I don't know of a navigation path back to
the first box other than to go back up to the world view 17:06:51
and then select the zone again.
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. If you're working on a computer running
Windows and it has Microsoft Word and you double click
on the Microsoft Word icon so that the application is
17:07:17
launched and replaces whatever has been on the screen
previously, covers it up, would you consider that to be
enlarging and translating a structured electronic
document?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; incomplete
17:07:34
hypothetical.
THE WITNESS: Would I consider it to be
enlarging and translating a structured electronic
document?
MR. MONACH: Mm-hmm.
17:07:46
THE WITNESS: I would not consider that -hadn't considered it before, but I would not, sitting
here right now, consider it enlarging and translating a
structured electronic document. What I think that is is
analogous to selecting one of these pieces of mail from 17:08:00

Page 216
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

the LaunchTile application view and opening that up.
17:08:05
The LaunchTile application view -- or the box labeled
"LaunchTile application view" is the second box that was
in the zone view and is derived from the same data and
was in the world view as well. So the expansion of the 17:08:20
world view -- of the 4-by-4 matrix to bring up -- so it
gets expanded and centered on the screen. And the
selection -- that's the first box. The gesture
selecting the second box then yields the expansion and
essentially centering to create the LaunchTile
17:08:41
application view.
If I were to now select one of those e-mail -one of those e-mails that's on that page and then go
into the e-mail reader, that then would be analogous to
selecting Microsoft Word which then is an application, 17:08:56
which now you're off on the races.
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. Does tapping on what you call the "second box"
launch the e-mail application in LaunchTile or not?
A. I think that the system, the way it's set up, 17:09:09
is that the e-mail application was opened at world view,
it's opened at zone view, and it's opened further at
LaunchTile application view.
MR. MONACH: Let's mark as the next exhibit -I believe it's Exhibit 18.
17:09:31

Page 217
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Correct.
17:09:33
MR. MONACH: Appendix 8 from your invalidity
report.
(Whereupon Exhibit 18 marked
for identification.)
17:09:38
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. Mr. Gray, is the Robbins '349 patent one of
the pieces of prior art you've relied on in opining that
the -- at least some of the claims of the '163 patent
are invalid?
17:10:20
A. Yes. Robbins '349 is one of the pieces of
prior art that I believe invalidates some of the
asserted claims of the '163.
Q. Could you describe briefly how the Robbins
invention works.
17:10:46
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; vague. Calls for a
narrative.
THE WITNESS: The Robbins invention takes
large -- creates a -- allows for the display of a large
data set on a relatively small display surface and uses 17:11:01
a variety of techniques to segment that large
information space to allow for access to the -- to
details or to finer levels of detail regarding that
large information space.
BY MR. MONACH:
17:11:28

877-702-9580

55

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 230
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

the answer's yes. I think the description in 2B and 2C 17:34:53
in my -- in Exhibit 18 -- Deposition Exhibit 18 show a
selection of the first segment. And while that first
box is enlarged, selection of a second segment to -- I
mean, a second box which then will enlarge and center
17:35:24
that -- or, rather, center -- I shouldn't say -- or
zoom. Tap to zoom. So the first one is a tap to zoom.
The second gesture is a tap to scroll.
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. Please identify for me in your chart the first 17:35:41
box that's enlarged and substantially centered. Where
is that?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: In the description for 2B,
detecting a first gesture and determining the first box, 17:36:01
there's a -- an illustration there which the
illustration is labeled "340." And the text supports
the fact that the segment 6 has been enlarged and it's
substantially centered.
BY MR. MONACH:
17:36:18
Q. Where is the second box if you look at page
340 -- or Figure 340?
A. So in 2B, there isn't a second box shown.
When we go to 2C, which is a description of the ability
to enlarge and then show second boxes which are
17:36:32

Page 231
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

available as a second gesture, the illustration at 1420 17:36:39
shows an equal overlapping segmentation of adjoining
areas prior to the first gesture.
Q. Do you have anyplace where after a first
gesture that enlarges the first box, you can still see
17:36:57
the second box and then tap on the second box to
substantially center it?
MS. MAROULIS: Objection; asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't have an
illustration -- I don't have an illustration in the
17:37:12
claim chart that shows a first box with second boxes
which would -- which are available for a second gesture.
But I believe that the second describes -- describes the
method by which that second box with a second gesture
could be selected or preselected.
17:37:31
BY MR. MONACH:
Q. By pressing on a number key?
A. Well, one of the methods that -- that can be
used -- well, the input component, 230, can be any one
of a touch pad, key pad, pointing device, stylus,
17:37:47
joystick or D pad.
MS. MAROULIS: Okay. We're at seven hours, so
I think we're done with the deposition.
MR. MONACH: Okay. All right. Thank you.
MS. MAROULIS: I don't have any questions for 17:38:02

Page 232
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

the witness.
17:38:03
We'll reserve the right to review and sign. I
believe there was some discussion of code, so we'll put
it under protective order for now and we'll dedesignate
it as needed.
17:38:12
Thank you, everyone.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end of disk
4 of 4 and concludes today's deposition of Stephen Gray.
The time is 5:38 p.m. And we're off the record.
(The proceeding adjourned at 5:38 p.m.)

____________________
STEPHEN GRAY

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of
2012.
___________________________

Page 233

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

CERTIFICATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA )
I, Heidi Belton, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter, a Registered Professional Reporter,
a Certified Realtime Reporter, and a
Certified Realtime Professional within and
for the State of California, do hereby
certify:
That STEPHEN GRAY, the witness whose
deposition is herein before set forth, was
duly sworn by me and that such deposition is
a true record of the testimony given by such
witness.
I further certify that I am not related to
any of the parties to this action by blood or
marriage and that I am in no way interested
in the outcome of this matter.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my
hand this 5th day of May, 20112.
_________________________________
HEIDI BELTON, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR
Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 12885

877-702-9580

59